401K for all?

[HelioPrime]

So Hillary wants to give all americans the ability to have a 401K paid for by the government. The tab will be picked up by taxing the rich.
Clinton retirement accounts

To the middle and low class I'm sure this sounds like fantastic news. Agree disagree?

I disagree. Just because you make more money doesn't mean you should be the money bag to support lower income americans. This seems like forced charity, being run and overseen by big brother.

I'll add that I love how the yahoo article has a link to a massive mansion video. A small insert to influence the reader to more support Hillary and believe the rich deserve more taxes anyhow.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime So Hillary wants to give all americans the ability to have a 401K paid for by the government. The tab will be picked up by taxing the rich. Clinton retirement accounts To the middle and low class I'm sure this sounds like fantastic news. Agree disagree? I disagree. Just because you make more money doesn't mean you should be the money bag to support lower income americans. This seems like forced charity, being run and overseen by big brother. I'll add that I love how the yahoo article has a link to a massive mansion video. A small insert to influence the reader to more support Hillary and believe the rich deserve more taxes anyhow.

More unconstitutional, socialist, big government, nanny state garbage.

The mansion in the video: is it Hillary's?

Are people really so stupid that they think the rich are really going to be paying more in taxes? That is, considering all the tax loopholes Congress keeps passing for the rich.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime So Hillary wants to give all americans the ability to have a 401K paid for by the government. The tab will be picked up by taxing the rich. Clinton retirement accounts To the middle and low class I'm sure this sounds like fantastic news. Agree disagree? I disagree. Just because you make more money doesn't mean you should be the money bag to support lower income americans. This seems like forced charity, being run and overseen by big brother. I'll add that I love how the yahoo article has a link to a massive mansion video. A small insert to influence the reader to more support Hillary and believe the rich deserve more taxes anyhow.

What you stated is a total miss-representation of the facts. Hillary Clinton is not advocating creating new taxes for only the rich to pay. What she is proposing is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else must do. In other words, she would work to get rid of all thier tax breaks and write offs which were granted them by the republican controlled Congress. Get rid of all the loopholes they use to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. As long as the wealthy are getting that free ride it is the middle class who must pick up the tab when the IRS comes knocking.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul What she is proposing is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else must do. In other words, she would work to get rid of all thier tax breaks and write offs which were granted them by the republican controlled Congress. Get rid of all the loopholes they use to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. As long as the wealthy are getting that free ride it is the middle class who must pick up the tab when the IRS comes knocking.

Just a question for you... What would be the "fair share" of taxes for the rich?

How much, of all the income taxes collected, should be paid by the richest 1% or 5% of Americans?

I'm curious to see what you consider a "fair share".

I'm looking for an answer like "The richest 1% of Americans should pay ___% of all the income taxes collected."

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Just a question for you... What would be the "fair share" of taxes for the rich? How much, of all the income taxes collected, should be paid by the richest 1% or 5% of Americans? I'm curious to see what you consider a "fair share". I'm looking for an answer like "The richest 1% of Americans should pay ___% of all the income taxes collected."

The percentage rate is based on the individuals total income relative to whatever business he has, or whatever job he works at.

So your question as you stated it cannot be answered by me. But by what people honestly report as profits or earnings.

But one might estimate. Let us say that 10 of the richest people own 90 percent of the wealth in this country. So clearly their taxes would be hugh relative to he rest of the population that only owns 10 percent of the nation's total wealth.

They keep their money in off-shore bank accounts instead of at a local bank like you might do, if you have a savings account. The percentage you earn from your savings is taxed. The savings they earn is not taxed because the percentage is earned in another country via an international bank. The same bank that then loans money to the government to be collected by the IRS, to be paid back with interest, which interest goes right back into the savings account of the wealthy few who are not taxed. Get it?

So you are basically paying income taxes to the Wealthy Few who loan the government money with interest, for those expendatures like our war in Iraq. The same company that might perhaps build the military stuff they sell to the government who pays for it with those loans from that company via the International Bank (aka IRS).

Meanwhile they got hundreds of loopholes and ways they get to legally avoid paying income or business taxes.

Now Clinton's plan would distroy those vultures as they would end up paying back the money they loaned to the government their self, robbing the rich to pay back the rich. Ron Pauls plan of getting rid of the income tax system would have a simular affect, it would cut out the Wealthy Few's profits they earn via those off shore bank loans to the government to be paid back by the working majority, putting the rich out of business relative to that circular plot now in effect.

Aaah.... the complexities of it all.

Sorry, I got no links for you, feeling lazy tonight.

So I will just state that as my opinon.

[HelioPrime]

I think the bigger problem with this is free 401K's make our nation even more attractive to immigration.

Universal healthcare, free 401K's, welfare...why don't we just tear down the fences and put neon signs offering "THE GOOD LIFE AS PAID FOR MY AMERICANS"

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime I think the bigger problem with this is free 401K's make our nation even more attractive to immigration. Universal healthcare, free 401K's, welfare...why don't we just tear down the fences and put neon signs offering "THE GOOD LIFE AS PAID FOR MY AMERICANS"

We had no fence, and a statue of liberty with it's inscription. Have you so soon forgotten?

People do not come here looking for a free lunch, they come with a dream in their pocket to share. They come to work hard so they can send money home to their family, and so that they can rise from proverty to success. They have died in the hardships of our deserts and within our vinyards, and our fields of strawberries, died to make the American Dream a success. For America is the melting pot of many cultues, just like a volcano is the melting pot of many rocks within the earth, erupting with a beacon of light that all can see.

How soon have you forgotten, this is the land of milk and honey, the promised land, not just for you, but for all who follow the dream.

And why would you need a free lunch when we sell tacos "two for a dollar"?

[butterbut]

Quote by: Technosoul People do not come here looking for a free lunch, they come with a dream in their pocket to share.

I agree (most of em anyways).

Still doesn't mean the government should give them or anyboday a free lunch. Everybody needs to earn thier own way.

[tivodan1116]

Techno, you misunderstood my question.

What I was asking is how much of the total tax burden should be put on the richest people?

Let's say just for example that the government collects $100 in taxes every year TOTAL. How much of that $100 should come from the richest 1% of Americans? How much should come from the richest 5%? $10? $15?

I'm just wondering what rich people would have to give for you to agree they are paying their fair share.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: butterbut I agree (most of em anyways). Still doesn't mean the government should give them or anyboday a free lunch. Everybody needs to earn thier own way.

Then you should have read my whole post instead of the one line you took out of context of the whole idea.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Techno, you misunderstood my question. What I was asking is how much of the total tax burden should be put on the richest people? Let's say just for example that the government collects $100 in taxes every year TOTAL. How much of that $100 should come from the richest 1% of Americans? How much should come from the richest 5%? $10? $15? I'm just wondering what rich people would have to give for you to agree they are paying their fair share.

The same percentage as everyone one else in the lower income brackets. Whatever that amounts too I cannot say off hand.

I think you are trying to pose a trick question to make it look like they would be paying more then their fair share. But as I noted before your question is not relative to how the income tax system is intended to operate.

[tivodan1116]

The reason I ask is that so many people who claim the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes don't know how much they really pay...

The top 5% of the population in terms of income pays over half of all tax received. The top half of the population pays 96% of all government revenues.

The rich pay plenty. To suggest that America is funded by the middle class is just emotional nonsense.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The reason I ask is that so many people who claim the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes don't know how much they really pay... The top 5% of the population in terms of income pays over half of all tax received. The top half of the population pays 96% of all government revenues. The rich pay plenty. To suggest that America is funded by the middle class is just emotional nonsense.

I would think that the middle class would be numbered within that 'top half' you mentioned. It is hard to imagine that half the total population is not part of the middle bracket. How can anyone figure out that the bottom half is also the middle class?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul What you stated is a total miss-representation of the facts. Hillary Clinton is not advocating creating new taxes for only the rich to pay. What she is proposing is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else must do. In other words, she would work to get rid of all thier tax breaks and write offs which were granted them by the republican controlled Congress. Get rid of all the loopholes they use to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. As long as the wealthy are getting that free ride it is the middle class who must pick up the tab when the IRS comes knocking.

So, she's not advocating getting rid of the tax breaks/loopholes passed in earlier years by the Democrat-controlled Congress? I wonder: does Hillary's accountant have her taking advantage of any of those breaks/loopholes? I suspect he (she) does.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor So, she's not advocating getting rid of the tax breaks/loopholes passed in earlier years by the Democrat-controlled Congress? I wonder: does Hillary's accountant have her taking advantage of any of those breaks/loopholes? I suspect he (she) does.

She was a new-be in the Senate not in Congress. And she is speaking about getting rid of those loopholes and tax breaks that were granted by both republicans and some democrats in Congress. And she has mentioned already that this would mean that she would be paying more taxes due to her husband's occupation as a touring speaker and book deals.

I know you do not want to listen too her and therefore know little of what she said.

Everyone's tax records are made public if they are holding some office in Washington DC.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul She was a new-be in the Senate not in Congress. And she is speaking about getting rid of those loopholes and tax breaks that were granted by both republicans and some democrats in Congress. And she has mentioned already that this would mean that she would be paying more taxes due to her husband's occupation as a touring speaker and book deals. I know you do not want to listen too her and therefore know little of what she said. Everyone's tax records are made public if they are holding some office in Washington DC.

So what if she wasn't in the House of Representatives. You seem to forget that these tax loopholes were passed by both houses of, say it with me, CONGRESS before being signed into law by whatever President was in office at the time.

It is still reasonable to think that she and every other rich person is going to find ways to get out of paying more in taxes and that Congress is going to help them do it.

[tivodan1116]

I'm just curious as to what, specifically, you two think these "loopholes" or "tax breaks" that the rich take advantage of are, precisely.

I really think they are just urban legends and neither of you have any clue.

[bishop]

i for one do not want or need nanny to take care of me anymore - i'm a big boy now and can go potty all by myself.

i'd sooner keep my income than have the government piss it away on more bureaucracy and/or handouts.

[Milton Bradley]

Seems to me like the same idiocy that lead to the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929.


The only real difference being that the people who felt they were not being included in the economic boom a that time borrowed money from the bank to invest in the Stock Market.


In our Hillary proposal, only the names are changed to protect the guilty.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I'm just curious as to what, specifically, you two think these "loopholes" or "tax breaks" that the rich take advantage of are, precisely. I really think they are just urban legends and neither of you have any clue.

home ownership (mortgage interest), charitable giving, various "business" expenses, etc.

Here's one example in particular: David Sirota: Preserving "A Tax Loophole the Size of A Mack Truck" - Politics on The Huffington Post